Vodka is alcohol and water, that's it. All alcohol is the same thing regardless of the source. They used grain.

Hey, I learned a new term today!

Anyway, don't social studies pretty much do the tea leaf adoption? The definition I keep hearing from practitioners for what makes a science (paraphrase: a body of knowledge that agrees within itself in order to make predictions) is the same one Llewellyn George used in the early 20th century to show astrology is a science, and it actually works.

How do you think LIDAR tech is going to upend our understanding of history? Or, do you think it is not a big deal? I hope you speculate in a rational way, but go nuts. I think it's going to show us something new in central Asia and Eastern Europe like it did in the Amazon and meso America. Maybe give us a better perspective on those "barbarians" that invaded Rome or possibly cities that were erased before history. Thoughts?

While fiction, Jack London had some decent books that took place during the Yukon rush, which he was a part of IIRC, and my Jr High history class read them for atmosphere. They are quick reads and I think in the public domain now.

Check out art history. Often, if you study an individual work, the circumstances surrounding it are examined. Everything from the mood of the artist to whatever event inspired the work is covered. For instance, if you read Candide you will get a tour of Europe and such as known by one of the smarter people of the 18th century. You would learn about why he wrote it, as well as the effects it had on the culture and politics. Art history is a great inroad for something besides political or military history.

The weather and the people. SoCal has a climate in which being broke and begging is tolerable, if you notice, many of the cults accentuate poverty as a lifestyle. The population is also a more receptive audience, much of the population moved there to live their life on their terms and experiments are common. This population also has the double whammy of not only being more receptive, but also unmoored from their community and it's an easy way to find friends. Many cult experts will tell you that not having access to strong family or friends support is a risk factor when dealing with cults.

I live at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, without modern tech it is a giant pain in the ass to get around in the winter. Mud, snow, ice, short days giving way to long nights who's temperatures can kill really makes it difficult for someone to get around, now apply that to a large body of people and supplies drawn by horses. Add in the lack of foraging opportunity and you can begin to understand why they hunkered down for the season.

The emigres pounced on the fact he became emperor. The people were fine with strong hands reigning in the excess. Napoleon, though declaring himself emperor, still carried the anti aristocracy sentiment and didn't hesitate to promote talent wherever he found it. He also issued his Code, which was well received by the people. He made military service, something available to most men, a way to get a better life if you applied yourself, many of his best commanders rose from low positions and it would have been impossible under the ancien regime. Eventually his forever wars outlasted the rosy feeling of "la Gloire" as the bodies started stacking up and the people were much less receptive to him and his ideas.

Do you know the artist or any possible victims of their behavior? If the answer is "No", separation achieved.

No, it's not ours, therefore anything done to them would not be authentic, it would necessarily not be.

That sounds closer to legend or even myth, rather than history. We have many other examples of this thinking in other cultures and wouldn't, we don't, consider it history. Is Heracles putting up Gibraltar history?

What would it look like to integrate the two traditions for a better story of humanity?

Sometimes I think the issue is trying to shoehorn concepts. Maybe the indigenous Australians didn't think it important to study history. Many societies don't have strong history traditions. It's easier to name the few that do, like China, Greece, the Jews, to an extent the Romans -which is the only reason western society has it's historical tradition today. Most of our knowledge of past events comes from sources in these civilizations. So maybe the Australians never took history seriously, and because of this the concept just isn't there, and we don't need to meld the approaches, because they aren't approaching the same thing?

I'm also open to history being a wider idea than that held by western society, maybe history is more than what Herodotus said it was.

IIRC the later Persian kingdoms like the safarids had majority Sunni populations.

It's only difficult if you are looking for something that wasn't there. Nobody until now seems to have difficulties with translating gender.

Most anything by Public Enemy or RATM.

The efficacy of nonviolent protest.

Maybe. It's also possible the reverse is the case, as a major aspect of romantic love is regard for the partner. Can you refuse something to one your in love with? I don't mean to say that men's weakness lead to women's rights, but maybe a little bit of respect was created?

Gotcha, fair question. It's access. Geography helped keep cultural influences out of the Amazon, Andes, etc. At the same time, look into how much Spanish ways integrated themselves into Latin American native cultures.

I think it was the influence of a more cosmopolitan outlook, it was certainly a first, afaik, but that is also an over gloss, it was more complicated of course, but that is the traditional textbook take. I personally think that it depends on the time and place, while mercy has been developed by today, it's always been present in individuals, there are surprisingly modern examples of this type of behavior, I would think that the knowledge of past behavior like being discussed was also not necessarily the norm, but those bizarre headline grabbing scenarios of today.

The French were much larger scale than the British. The British won the seven years war and got Canada out of the deal. We have French colonial hand downs in Colorado to give you an idea of the scale of French involvement in the Americas. The key is that they didn't necessarily have organized colonisation as an impetus, they were fine with trading and not investing. This worked for a very long time across a large portion of the continent.

We can look at another Catholic power involved in the Americas for some illumination. Spain didn't see the protestant issue, they saved all their persecution for Jews. What we have found is that many Jews were involved with the Americas (some even think Columbus was Jewish). They still stayed "crypto Jews" but didn't suffer the indignities that they would have in Spain, where you could be pantsed in public if you were suspected of being Jewish to see if you were circumcised. They maintained deep cover in the New world regardless, but they have found Jewish cemeteries in the San Luis Valley and through New Mexico and the southwest, the key point being that it wasn't until the 60s or so that this was discovered. So maybe the Huguenots could emigrate, but the political deal between the monarchy and church would probably keep them oppressed in the Americas, as it did for Jews in Spanish America.

The dissenters that left for America were in trouble for their proximity to people who would have bad outcomes if the dissenters prevailed, so moving to America relieved the political pressure. The dissenters also tended to be fans of living experiments, Quakers and puritans wanted a new society, but believed pretty much the same things as Anglicans, a geographic solution would work in this case.

Good question. I can't handle YouTube videos, they do tend to be childish and focused more on being witty and graphically interesting than informative (for example, false Smerdis doesn't have enough sources to make a five minute video, and can be covered with "rival power centers propped up options"). I was drawn into history by good authors like Voltaire, Gibbon, and Will Durant who know how to write, text books and academic historians don't seem to have that prejudice. If doing Rome, check out Mary Beard, she gives a vibrant and factual narrative.

First of all, their are many Native Americans living traditional lives, they just use updated equipment. However, research the history of boarding schools for native children, the founder of the system is on record as wanting to "kill the Indian and save the man". The various native cultural expressions, like ceremonial dances and such, were outlawed and being a member of a historical society that helped to keep traditions alive were also outlawed.

It's still a custom in many societies today.

It was common place for a long time, and leaving people alive after a conquest is usually a stage in social development. You see it in the middle east ancient history. For a long time it was a tribe coming out of the desert or hills replacing the existing people wholesale. Then you see people like the Assyrians taking slaves and relocating whole populations. The Babylonians would only take the leadership class and eventually the Persians took only taxes to everyone's acclaim (it has been offered that the messiah mentioned in the Tanakh was Cyrus or maybe Darius, ICR which).